Today's diary is a continuation of the email exchange with Mr. S on October 8th.

========

Mr. Ebata

As a result of reconfirming the information, the minutes and answer videos that are the primary source have not been released, and there are two articles on Ms.Sugita's official website (posted on September 26th and October 1st). Based on the tweet by Mr. Kotoe Hashimoto, a member of Nippon Kaigi, on October 1st, there was a counterargument to the remark problem.

(It seems that the information has been confirmed by Mr. Ebata, but I will describe it for the time being.)

Mio Sugita Official Website (October 1st)

Kotoe Hashimoto Tweet

The information above reports that the statement was in response to the comfort problem issue. According to whether or not the statement was made, or intent of the statement, these were information that could not be proven to be true because they were statement from the person concerned, or from the hearsay from the congressman's secretary who was there. Therefore, it could not be a source of evidence.

(The video I identified, I thought, was a video that introduced another claim by Ms. Sugita Miho.)

I apologize for basing my opinion on inaccurate information.

Also, according to Sugita's statement, the LDP subcommittee has adopted a policy of withholding information from the public in consideration of the impact of the debate on society and freedom of speech.

(I think the fact that someone leaked the contents of the closed session to the outside world is the more serious issue...)

# Hereafter, due to the description of the personal feelings, omitted by Ebata's discretion

=====

Mr. S

I'm sorry for the late reply.

As a result of my own research for the past two days after receiving your suggestions, I would like to report the following conclusions.

1. Conclusion

(a) I will not add, delete, or change my diary on October 7th at this time.

(b) However, the above (1) does not apply if in the future, based on new evidence, the facts are found to be sufficient to change my mind.

2. Survey approach

(1) Investigation policy

(a) An overview of the circumstances of this case, from the occurrence of the incident to the present

(b) Investigation of primary information about the case.

(c) Survey of the contents of major news agencies

(d) Critics' comments that Ebata has used as a reference point for "fixed-point observations" for over 20 years

(e) Research on the top 100 or so articles in this case through Google searches.

(f) Re-examination of previous definitive primary information outside of this case, as well as Twitter comments and research of the paper using Google Scholar.

owever, it would be too much for me to describe all of these, so I will only outline the implementation items below.

(2) An overview of the circumstances of this case, from the occurrence of the incident to the present

(Step1) Regarding the so-called "woman tells a lie" statement, Mio Sugita (hereinafter referred to as Ms. M) announced a completely negative comment.

↓

(Step2) After that, it was confirmed that there were comments from multiple conference participants.

↓

(Step3) Ms. M acknowledged the remark, but added that the background was different (× sexual violence problem, ○ comfort woman problem).

↓

(Step4) Regarding this, as far as I admit, one person has confirmed the comment that agrees with it (there is no consent comment from other participants)

(3) Investigation of primary information about the case.

It is almost the same information as Mr.S. No other recordings or minutes have been found.

(4) Survey of the contents of major news agencies

As a result of investigating the articles of Kyodo News and Jiji Press, there is a description about (2) above, but only the description that the background was mentioned in the thread on sexual damage consultation, not the comfort woman issue.

After this, I could not find any corrections or additional articles regarding the background claimed by Ms. M.

(5) Critics' comments that Ebata has used as a reference point for "fixed-point observations" for over 20 years

In general, in addition to (4), he re-criticizes the so-called "Shincho 45" case regarding LGBT, productivity, and declining birthrate in the past.

There is a statement that the basis of the discussion was still (not the comfort woman issue) in the thread on sexual damage consultation". (However, there is no source of remarks to them. The source seems to be an interview other than Ms. M, but the person himself cannot be identified)

(6) Research on the top 100 or so articles in this case through Google searches.

Search for "water veins" & "because women lie easily". 2.71 million hits. (By the way, the number of searches for "quantum computer" alone is 1.34 million, which is about twice that).

I read through the top 100 cases.

Basically, they were lists of the same contents, however there are no articles that support or instruct Mio Sugita's claim.

(7) Re-examination of previous definitive primary information outside of this case, as well as Twitter comments and research of the paper using Google Scholar.

- Rereading "Shincho 45" of "Ms. Miho Sugita's paper", and

- Ms. M's twitter comment on past sexual victim issues (but "summary"), and

- Carefully read about 5 papers from the one with the highest number of citations in the "Miho Sugita's Paper" using Google Scholar.

I have carried out the above.

3. Consideration

Regarding the above, I think as follows on the premise that there are misunderstandings and misreads such as my lack of research.

(1) Regarding the primary information that is absolute evidence, I could not find the facts in this case because it was only the person and the other person (meaning one person as far as I investigated).

(2) However, in consideration of other situations, testimony, other behaviors of Ms. M's time history regarding this matter, past remarks, etc., in my own comprehensive consideration, the above 1(1) I made a conclusion.

(3) I intend to immediately implement the above 1(2), depending on new evidence and statements of facts.

4. Other

Regarding Ebata's past implementation items similar to the 1(2), I think that the correspondence in this diary regarding HIV will be helpful.

5. acknowledgements

I would like to thank you for pointing out the importance of this issue, and I believe that I have been able to re-examine Ms. M's thinking from various perspectives and establish a clear position for myself.

I would be grateful if you would continue to monitor my articles and point out any misconceptions or errors in my articles.

Thank you very much for your support.

October 9, 2020.

Tomoichi Ebata

=====

Mr. Ebata.

I apologize for the delay in confirming and replying.

I am sorry for your great amount of time spent on researching and reviewing the matter and for the views you have taken on the matter.

Since you have given me this much information and evidence, I have no objections or opinions about the diary entries.

In addition, I learned a lot about the time cost and know-how involved in the investigation by observing Mr. Ebata's methods of information research and backstory.

Thank you very much.

Once again, I understood the low cost of spreading information versus the cost of considering the information and it's not the accuracy of information that moves the masses, but the impact.

Also, throughout the investigation, I was impressed that there was a good amount of excitement in the defense, even though Ms. M's self-representation and one person's hearsay were the only sources. On the other hand, the fact that no one has attempted to prove the certainty of the defense's grounds

At any rate, this exchange has allowed me to reevaluate my views on the case and has given me a good opportunity to think about how to handle information and the public outcry.

I look forward to reading more of Ebata's articles and views in the future.